Banner Advertiser

Friday, July 20, 2012

RE: [mukto-mona] Rokeya and Taslima



Jiten sahib,

I hate those who destroy Mandir or idol and oppress minorities. I  talk and write against such activities.

 

 I have no further comment on Taslima.I hold on to my view which I have said about her.

Shah Abdul Hannan

 


From: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jiten Roy
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 5:27 AM
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] Rokeya and Taslima

 

 

Enemy of all religions would be someone who fights to block all religious operations.  I don’t think you can fit Taslima into that category.

We have many enemies of religion in Bangladesh, who interrupt ongoing (minority) religious operations and desecrate idols and temples. They are the real enemies of religions. These enemies are not atheists; they are devout religious men. Taslima is just a critic, not an enemy, of religion.

Jiten Roy

--- On Thu, 7/19/12, S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com> wrote:


From: S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com>
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] Rokeya and Taslima
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, July 19, 2012, 10:14 PM

 

Mr Das, this is just your mental picture. She (Taslima) is just hated by most Bangladeshis, Indians, Muslims..In the West only a few people know her. Common people do not know her there.

Shah Abdul Hannan

 


From: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com [mailto: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Kamal Das
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 6:27 AM
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Rokeya and Taslima

 

 

"Taslima is an atheist, herself a debauch and preacher of debauchery, enemy of all religions, indecent to the core, has no civility."  Yet, Taslima has more popularity than Mr. Hannan!

 

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 10:14 PM, S A Hannan <sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com> wrote:

 

Taslima is an atheist, herself a debauch and preacher of debauchery, enemy of all religions, indecent to the core, has no civility.

Rokeya was a religious woman, practiced her religion, wore Hijab, and fought for rights of women given by Islam but largely denied to women.

Shah Abdul Hannan

 


From: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Sukhamaya Bain
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 5:08 AM
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com


Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Rokeya and Taslima

 

 

I think, in addition to professional and extra-professional jealousy, Taslima had to suffer from the wrath of a lot of Bangladeshi Muslims who have the power and have gotten used to having some hateful sentiments. For example, her book “Lajja” is like a documentary of what the Hindus of East Bengal who loved their motherland enough to stay there got from the Muslim power; it has no criticism of Islam. It has hurt the sentiments of many Muslims, because it has exposed their hatred against innocent Hindus quite forcefully.

 

Sukhamaya Bain


==========================================

From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Rokeya and Taslima

 

 

Please read a couple of paragraphs from my article that I have sent you. Read the reactions to Taslima's writings of the great scholars like Ketaki Kushari Dyson and Arundhati Roy. Read Taslima's autobiographical novels, particularly the one that made Dyson weep. Any woman with the sense of self-respect should weep. Taslima is the victim of politics. Rokeya was not. Political issues during Rokeya's time were completely different from that during Rokeya's time. Details will follow. The worse, the life style of Taslima is against the taboo in our culture. Also there is professional jealousy.  Taslima is a case that we need to revisit from time to time. This is not some thing that you can trash.

 

From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 6:35 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Rokeya and Taslima

 

 

Thanks for your opinions on this.

I think a little context is needed. Taslima and Begum Rokeya are from two DIFFERENT generations. Even among Hindus or Christians no one could get away with what Taslima did if she was from Begum Rokeya's time.

Taslima is beyond "Withdrawing" any misinformation. After telling so many lies, I am pretty sure she does not have a clue where to start today. While I do NOT support forcing her out of our country, I think she should explain her behavior and disturbing attitude to her fans.

I have women in my family who fought with their own family to have education and won that fight. They did not have to say nasty things about religion or their own family to do that. They simply had to present their cases to family elders and negotiate with them.

Taslima took advantage of lack of knowledge about Islam in the west and some Indians used her to validate their biases against Islam and Muslims. I mean it would be impossible to find a country or community which do not have any flaw. Despite our "Flaws" we have elected women as heads of states for two decades. I don't think they have done any extraordinary work to improve conditions of women in our country. In fact the NGOs (For example: Grameen and BRAC) who did were targeted by the establishment openly.

Everything Taslima said about Islam has been copied from orientalists comments (They were equally hateful towards Hindus) and tried to take stuff our of CONTEXT!

If you use this techniques against any book, you can easily distort information.

I have no problem with "Most rational people". However most people are not rational rather emotional. Often influenced by their own life experiences. For example, if a Hindu boy was verbally abused by his "Friends" for being "Hindu", I cannot expect him to have positive ideas about Islam. Unfortunately this is very common in our country. Our elders do not encourage such behavior but I have not seen much efforts to discourage it either. However the Qur'an clearly said, this sort of behavior is UN-ISLAMIC.

Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance. Thus have We made alluring to each people its own doings. In the end will they return to their Lord, and We shall then tell them the truth of all that they did.

[ Source: Al Qur'an 6:108]


That is why, I try to offer sources from the scriptures. I also gave links to the whole chapter, so people can go there and verify it for themselves.

Here in Mukto-mona forum there are people who do not agree with my religious views. However there are couple of people they "Hate" it without anyways to justify it and there are people who do not agree without spreading lies against Islam.

Taslima falls into the first kind. She just made up explanations/translations of the Qur'an and devoted a lot of time and energy to spread her "Ignorance". Begum Rokeya just wanted to educate Muslim girls who were victims of ignorance of the then Muslim community. Both were rebels of their times with a huge difference in approach.

Shalom!


 

 

 



__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] Fw: [Alapon] Writer Humayun Ahmed dies in NY



This kind of fazlamo is only possible by Sunil. He is very serious and a lot of thought process has gone behind this statement though! The class character of Humayun Ahmed's characters and protagonists is some thing that gels well with Sunil - a pest of his own kind with mastery in story telling and backed by the most reactionary Anandabazar speak for each other. Sarat babu;s capture of the time, the effect of the colonial plunder in micro lives, in the life of the women and those who fought the last ditch battle for the village production system and the village society, the intricacies, the complex femininity in such a system, the meaning of the transcendence of female sexuality beyond the chemical needs of genitalia are some awesome things in Saratbabu that is unparallel in world literature. Humayun with his non-committed middle class cadaverous cocoon like behavior is as disgusting as the characters of Sunil and Budhhadev Guha,  a shade better than Buddhadev and so akin to Anandabazar like "fun" was rightly picked up by Sunil- along with the luxurious life style of the duo and parasitic fame all are in the same league! No wonder Sunil would say so! 

On 21 July 2012 04:40, Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://www.bd-pratidin.com/?view=details&type=gold&data=Sports&pub_no=482&cat_id=1&menu_id=1&news_type_id=1&index=1

           Hope you read the piece by Sunil Gangopadhya who says Humayun Ahmed's position as a fiction writer (kothashilpi) in Bangla is above that of Sharotchandra Chattopadhya. That is a huge compliment!  I know Sunil-da and I know that he is an honest and serious litterateur. I respect his opinion on Humayun Ahmed.

                     Farida Majid

To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
From: kamalctgu@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 07:26:37 +0600
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Fw: [Alapon] Writer Humayun Ahmed dies in NY

 
Humayun Ahmed was a good friend of mine for twenty years,1974-93.  His literature was mediocre, but he earned enviable popularity.  I am sure he would be remembered for a while.


On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 5:20 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

I had a chance to watch only a few of his TV-dramas; styles were so unique that – I could identify his dramas later on only after hearing a few dialogues.

Humayun Ahmed was the 'morning star' of the literary circle in Bangladesh. He has given a new life to the TV-drama-world in Bangladesh.  I am sure - he has shown ways to so many lost drifters through his novels, dramas, and writings. I have never met him personally but - the news of his departure felt like a loss of a close relative. May God rest his departed soul with peace and tranquility for eternity!

Jiten Roy

--- On Thu, 7/19/12, Morshed, Adnan Z <morshed@cua.edu> wrote:


From: Morshed, Adnan Z <morshed@cua.edu>
Subject: [Alapon] Writer Humayun Ahmed dies in NY
To: "alapon@yahoogroups.com" <alapon@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thursday, July 19, 2012, 2:56 PM

 
Writer Humayun Ahmed is no more.....

http://www.bdnews24.com/details.php?id=228520&cid=2

________________________________










__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] Who was not afraid of Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011)?



Well, you are one of the sharpest minds of this forum and I am not surprised that he listened to you intently. His support for Iraq war troubled me quite a bit but then again, that was Mr. Hitchens, who always loved be controversial and unpredictable. That was his trade mark and how could you not be impressed with his forceful arguments even when he was arguing for a loosing side. I hope Mr. Ali forgave him for that blunder?
-SD
 
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS

From: Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 7:22 AM
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] Who was not afraid of Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011)?

 

        

  I met Christopher at a Graduate Center, CUNY, event in 1990 at the height of the Rushdie Affair fiasco. He had listened to me intently while I was defending Salman Rushdie's novel, Satanic Verses as a Muslim.  His article defending Rushdie was published shortly afterwards. I quoted Hitchens  later on in my article on Rushdie (published in  Law and Literature Perspectives, ed. Bruce Rockwood).

           He was a personable guy, enormously intelligent and always a delight to read no matter how controversial the content. It is true that he could be combative and arrogant, and many of his friends never forgave him for supporting the U. S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Tariq Ali was so furious that he remarked (in his book The Clash of Fundamentalisms) that there had been one casualty that the 9/11 memorial forgot to mention in the roll call -- and that was Christopher Hitchens.


               Tariq Ali can now join thousands of Christopher's fans to bid farewell to the real end of a talented author. I will miss the sparkling brilliance of his words -- the weapons that he stockpiled. Let Christopher remain amongst us as a model of eloquence when we feel embattled and want to strike our opponent with sharp words.   


                Farida Majid

[An article in Truthout did a good job of explaining why Christopher did a turnabout and then turned to writing anti-God stuff as a cover]


Author, pundit Christopher Hitchens dies at 62

Shannon Stapleton / Reuters file
Author Christopher Hitchens outside his hotel in New York in June, 2010.

By Hillel Italie, Associated Press National Writer

Christopher Hitchens, the author, essayist and polemicist who waged verbal and occasional physical battle on behalf of causes on the left and right and wrote the provocative best-seller "God is Not Great," died Thursday night after a long battle with cancer. He was 62.
Hitchens' death was announced in a statement from Conde Nast, publisher of Vanity Fair magazine. The statement says he died Thursday night at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston of pneumonia, a complication of his esophageal cancer.
"There will never be another like Christopher. A man of ferocious intellect, who was as vibrant on the page as he was at the bar," said Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter. "Those who read him felt they knew him, and those who knew him were profoundly fortunate souls."
A most-engaged, prolific and public intellectual who enjoyed his drink (enough to "to kill or stun the average mule") and cigarettes, he announced in June 2010 that he was being treated for cancer of the esophagus and canceled a tour for his memoir, "Hitch-22."
Hitchens, a frequent television commentator and a contributor to Vanity Fair, Slate and other publications, had become a popular author in 2007 thanks to "God is Not Great," a manifesto for atheists that defied a recent trend of religious works. Cancer humbled, but did not mellow him. Even after his diagnosis, his columns appeared weekly, savaging the British royal family or reveling in the death of Osama bin Laden.
"I love the imagery of struggle," he wrote about his illness in an August 2010 essay in Vanity Fair. "I sometimes wish I were suffering in a good cause, or risking my life for the good of others, instead of just being a gravely endangered patient."
Eloquent and intemperate, bawdy and urbane, he was an acknowledged contrarian and contradiction -- half-Christian, half-Jewish and fully non-believing; a native of England who settled in America; a former Trotskyite who backed the Iraq war and supported George W. Bush. But his passions remained constant and enemies of his youth, from Henry Kissinger to Mother Teresa, remained hated.
Vanity Fair's Christopher Hitchens discusses the sex abuse scandal at the Vatican.





advertisement


He was a militant humanist who believed in pluralism and racial justice and freedom of speech, big cities and fine art and the willingness to stand the consequences. He was smacked in the rear by then-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and beaten up in Beirut. He once submitted to waterboarding to prove that it was indeed torture.


Hitchens was an old-fashioned sensualist who abstained from clean living as if it were just another kind of church. In 2005, he would recall a trip to Aspen, Colo., and a brief encounter after stepping off a ski lift.


To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
From: shahdeeldar@yahoo.com
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:34:34 -0700
Subject: [mukto-mona] Who was not afraid of Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011)?

 

"Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it." C. Hitchens

Well, worry no more! Mr. Hitchens passed away last year by losing his
final battle with a deadly nemesis, the cancer. Whether you hate him
or love him, he was one of the great literary personalities that one
could hardly ignore in the last two decades. It was delightful to
watch and listen to this sharp witted man debating and pulverizing his
opponents with very precise and lethal arguments.  He was the man to
debate and test whether you could knock him down with your counter
punches.  As an impartial observer, I must say that very few could
survive his punches. He rarely lost any debate as far as I can
recall.  As a former Trotskyite and Oxford educated man, he ended up
changing his positions many times over making his friends and foes
very puzzled with his contradictory stances.  He was unique in the
sense that he never tried to please anybody and spoke forthrightly
whatever he felt right about the issue without any fear. Right or
wrong, you would wish he would be arguing for your side than taking
sides with your opponents. That was his charm! He will be dearly
missed as a strong and independent voice of our time!
-SD
 
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS





__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling



Nietzsche was a notorious woman hater indeed. "Thou goest to woman? Do not forget thy whip."---He preaches. The health of this brilliant man was always so bad that he had to take early retirement at the age of 34. At the age of 44 he became insane and never recovered. "His opinion of women, like every man's, is an objectification of his own emotion towards them, which is obviously one of fear. 'Forget not the whip'--but nine women out of ten would get the whip away from him, and he knew it, so he kept away from women, and soothed his wounded vanity with unkind remarks."---explains Bertrand Russell. We all know how much sage Manu discriminated men against women. About "Manusanhita" Nietzsche says,"I know of no book in which so many delicate and kindly things are said of woman as in the Law book of Manu--- ."  

From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
Endless debate on religions by people who read little and write a lot is annoying to the extreme.  To analyze the genesis of God(s), one has to read the old Egyptian literature, find the connection between pentagram and the shapes of men and goats.  Comments by Ms. Majid remind me of the misogynist philosopher Nietzsche.  He wrote, "When a woman pretends to be a scholar, there is something wrong with her procreative organs.". "In the Qur'an Allah is always addressing human beings with practical, worldly advice: O you believing men and women ---- ".  Anybody who believes that his/her "holy book" has advice from Allah/God lacks analytical ability.   God the almighty was not a creator in any religion except those originating from Judaism.  God itself is a creation of the imaginative human mind.  The concept of God is thoroughly imperfect.

   


Sanskar is literally reform as Dr. Roy pointed out.  When a sanskar becomes old, it becomes custom or tradition.  Anything connected with seven, saptapadee, seven days in a week, or seven heavens is associated with seven planets in the geocentric universe.  These planets also represent archangels in Judeo-Christianity.  They were independent Gods in pantheism earlier.

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:27 AM, subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
1. I think the word "custom" (as has been suggested by Farida Majid) is pretty close as the synonym of the word "sanskar". For example, in the context of religion, "saptapadee" (the bride and the groom together walk seven steps so that the actual conjugal life become long and happy)  as a religious ritual is a significant part of Hindu wedding. This custom or sanskar has no scientific basis but the purpose is goodness. One can cite hundreds of examples.  
2. "They ignore the fact that here I'm talking endlessly about 'people' -- human beings, communities and places/locations where people live and work. There can be NO religion -- no matter how powerful a God -- without people."----Farida Majid. This great but courageous utterance by Farida Majid ("Sabar uporey manush sotyo, tahar upore nai"---Chandidas) is prone to be treated as blasphemous by shallow believers. It has been said by our great poets like Rabindranath and Nazrul neither of whom was a nonbeliever. Nazrul's "audacious" call to Genghis, Mahmud, and Kalapahar to demolish the places of worship where man is ignored obviously angered the mullahs. Let me take a quote even from Jasimuddin's "Sojan badiyar ghat" in which an 80-year old religious Manir Munshi says: "ei masjid iter ganthuni, Allah hethay korey na baas, ihar mayay mathay koriya bohiya anibe sarbonash." He said this when a bloody clash between the Muslims and Hindus was imminent. I wrote an article (published in Ogrobeej thanks to Shoumyo Dasgupta) on "Sojan badiyar ghat". I interpreted Jasimuddin in the following way: Jasimuddin has emphasized that man is "way above the few brick pillars". Man is there, that is why there is God. Without man, the the place of worship is nothing but a meaningless structure.   
     

Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
           All the discussion about religion by the so-called atheists (both deshi and bideshi) swirl around God, His existence and blind faith.  I really cannot be bothered to be so God-obssessed as the atheists are.  They ignore the fact that  here I'm talking endlessly about 'people' -- human beings, communities and places/locations where people live and work.  There can be NO religion -- no matter how powerful a God -- without people.  Buddhang sharanang gacchaami -- sanghang sharang gacchaami, etc. There must be a SANGHA. Call it a Umma, if you like. In the Qur'an Allah is always addressing human beings with practical, worldly advice: O you believing men and women ----        Subimal has used a nice quote and comments : "Dharma is a shuva sanskar". This "sanskar" (can we trnslate it into "superstition"? Probably not.) is the result of religious beliefs of thousands of years of our forefathers.             The word 'sanskar' is very interesting in this context.  It has many meanings. It means 'custom' in one sense, and that meaning does not have to be limited to 'religious beliefs' only. Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Bouddhas of Bengal share many customs that belong to the locale. We have to add a negative -- ku-sanskar -- in order to mean 'superstition'. Sanskar also means 'correction' or revision or edifying.  Thus we have a 2nd sangskaran of a published book.  So, to me, the word 'sanskar' connotes both customs or long tradition, and one that keeps changing as society changes.                        "Dharma is a shuva sanskar" is a very apt statement. It relies -- not on 'blind faith' ( I don't know what that oft repeated phrase means), but on society's faith on religions to mean good and give right guidance to mankind.  Religion-peddlers manage to exploit a handful of faithfuls within a particular faith, but worse, they exploit the whole society's faith on the goodness of religions.       On the word sanskar. again, the great grammarian Panini of Afghanistan in 500 BC organized and created a written language out of what he was hearing around him and the hymns that were being sung in rituals.  He called this bhasha Sanskrita or "that which has been edified'.                             Farida Majid
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.comFrom: subimal@yahoo.comDate: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 05:41:47 -0700Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling  
Yours may be one of some possible explanations. I still remember what Bani Basu, a novelist from West Bengal and wife of a Buddhist scholar, has written in the introduction of her "semi-historical" novel "Maitrya Jatak": "Dharma is a shuva sanskar". This "sanskar" (can we trnslate it into "superstition"? Probably not.) is the result of religious beliefs of thosands of years of our forefathers. To this has been added the strong religious environment the atheist is living in. It's foundation in our subconscious mind is so splod that even a "confirmed" atheist fails to escape it completely. And this manifests itself in an atheist's love for devotional or spiritual songs of  Rabindranath and others.  
 
From: Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
"Is it not fascinating that even the educated and culturally advanced atheists and skeptics love devotional songs written by our great lyricists? Why is it so? "

Very interesting observation!
Here is my two cents:
No matter how much we know about the nature and its laws, it will still be a mystery for us for many millions years to come. We will never be able to attain the absolute knowledge that we might need to predict a future incident like a plane crash in the sky or say, us facing certain deaths on certain dates. That insecurity might be a factor why we still do not mind to sing the hallelujah hymn to yield that undefined mysterious power to a greater power than ours own? 
-SD   
 
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS
From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
1.Use of drug has been an integral part of the culture of many secretive and semi-secretive cults. The "sati" had sometimes to be drugged to persuade her to walk onto the burning pyre of her dead husband. I have seen smoking of "ganja" by people (male) of all ages during the religious event called "trinather mela". In urban religious practices of Hinduism, this (smoking ganja) has been greatly marginalized or probably has vanished. Many Hindu sadhus cannot do without it. Drug opens spiritual window for the truth seeker. In my young life I have seen disciples (fans) sitting around the master (male or female) to get engaged in profound spiritual talks while smoking ganja.  
2. There has always been uses of the religion by the exploiters as the opiate of the masses. But it has other uses too. Think about a typical Indian Hindu mother with little education and who was born 80 years ago. Religion has taught her to completely devote herself to the service of her husband. This is exploitative part. On the other hand religion gives her God or gods and goddesses to be worshiped for piety and spiritual and mystical experiences and pleasure as well. Also observance of religious rituals is a part of her daily routine. Obviously fear factor is a motive force behind her religious behavior. But what about the 100-year old educated and highly religious father who sees same one God in every god and goddess and who has no belief in hell or heaven or in piety? Yes, at the times of hardships and distress he prays and tears roll down his cheeks while he is praying. Here religion provides him with a drug free comfort. Here I see a great utility of religion in the personal life of a believer. When he is in total despair, he completely submits himself to God.   
3. There is hardly any one who chose his own religion. He already has it by default and it is now his duty to practice it believing that it is a great thing and he should be proud of it. While practicing it and knowing more and more about it questions may however arise in his inquiring mind. 
4. Being proud of one's own religion and considering the same as the best one is typical of the educated and socially and politically conscious class. Common toiling and economically struggling people do not have time to engage in such a luxury. Even he has hardly any time to observe all the recommended rituals. 
5. Is it not fascinating that even the educated and culturally advanced atheists and skeptics love devotional songs written by our great lyricists? Why is it so?                        
 

From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
"it is a mere drug free comfort for our mind!"  In reality, the psychedelic drugs had a great role in the development and propagation of religions.
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
"Religion is one such belief also. But, it brings some sort of pride in people."
I call it the last resort to belong to a huge cult. I would rather look at it from a Freudian angle. It is far easier to become a religious man than a true knowledge gatherer. It brings pride to people who have nothing else to proud of! Why would a criminal be interested in converting to born again in something after five consecutive murders? What would be a better choice for him/her? Learning more about how celestial objects are faithfully orbiting around other stars and planets? Or, take a new religious attire and demand respect from others? No doubt, the later sounds far easier! Look, my words are harsh but that is what I feel about religions. If anybody thinks that the God being on their side, I say, keep dreaming on brothers and sisters. To me, it is a mere drug free comfort for our mind! No more and no less! -SD  

"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
People believe in many things; not all those beliefs are revealed to others. We all have our own prejudices/superstitions. Exposing one's prejudices is like exposing one's 'stupidities.' As a result, people rarely talk about them. How do you express that you believe in something that does not exist? Is it a sign of smartness or what?
Religion is one such belief also. But, it brings some sort of pride in people. So  they feel the need to show their religiosity to others in their religious attires and/or appearances to stir up otherwise nonexistent resentment and hatred. There is no end in sight to end these types of cultural disturbance in our societies.
 
Jiten Roy --- On Fri, 7/13/12, Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, July 13, 2012, 9:53 AM

 
How you feel about your own faith and belief is not anybody's concern unless you impose your values and standard on others. To me, it is more important to see whether a belief takes people to the dark ages or enlightenment of a verifiable truth. I can tolerate your belief but may not respect your belief. If you are a free thinker, that should be totally OK with you as I would follow the same rule.
-SD 
 
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS
From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
If religious people can keep their religion private and stop boasting about their religion being the best, there would not any problem.
>>>>>>>> I agree. Actually arrogance is bad for all people. It eats up best qualities from our personalities. However, if you ask me about my faith and how I feel about it, you should be able to tolerate my "Opinion" on MY faith matters. I have seen people have some preconceived notions about religious people and often go with it. Having tolerance and rejecting/reducing arrogance are "Best practices" for any peaceful communities. No matter if you want to view it from religious point of view or secular point of view. Shalom!
-----Original Message----- From: Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tue, Jul 10, 2012 6:47 am Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
Only thing I can add here is that the people, who are truly spiritual and never stop asking questions about our origin and our relation to the universe should not have any problem with little critic.  If religious people can keep their religion private and stop boasting about their religion being the best, there would not any problem. But. that is not happening in practice and hence, they do deserve critic now and then. Any belief should be challenged now and then before it gets transformed as an universal truth. The next thing you will find that people will be demanding the religiously adjusted science in the public schools. Who would want that? How would reach to the next frontier with such compromised science?
-SD
 
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2012 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
I have thought about the question also - as to why people get offended by the criticism of their religions; why can't they leave it to God.  This is what I found.
People are interested in religion not only for the eternal rewards, but - also they are also interested in the brand name of the clan. Religion is no different from other commercial commodity. It needs to be sold for continued expansion, and criticism is not good for the business, and also for the reputation of the clan.  As a result, people cannot wait for God's punishment.
Now, the tolerance level of criticism varies from followers to followers. Some followers may care more about eternal rewards than expansionism. They will have more tolerance to criticism. Some followers could be totally indifferent of criticism. It's a matter of priority.
Having said that, I have to recognize that, while protecting the brand name is discouraged in some religions, it is mandatory in others. 
Jiten Roy --- On Tue, 7/3/12, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 3, 2012, 4:36 PM

 
Along with making a little correction in my post below, let me put forth my thoughts on one of the terms that I have used.
                                                                                                                   
Abusing Religion:
 
From time to time, many religious people accuse non-religious people and people of other religions of abusing their religion. Example: if someone were to open up the Bible and criticize something in it, he/she would be accused by some Christians of abusing their religion. I said "some" (as opposed to "many") for Christians, because I believe this group has progressed significantly for a lot of them to ignore such criticisms.
 
However, let us try some logic. What can be more abuse for God (Allah, Bhagaban, whatever else in other lanugages) than the so-called believers to think that He is not almighty, and that He needs help from them? What can be more doubting of God's power than thinking that He needs humans to fight for Him (or for His religion) in this world?
 
The way I see it, if someone actually insulted God or His messenger, a true believer could feel pity for the insulter. Because, according to the belief, the insult was against the most powerful, and the insulter might have invited big trouble for himself/herself in the form of punishment from God. If God knew best, the believer would have no business prescribing a punishment for the insulter. The most civilized and caring action for the believer would be to pray to God to change the insulter's mind, the power of which God certainly has according to his/her true belief.
 
The bottom line is, if religion was really for believing in the almighty God (Allah, Bhagaban, whatever else in other lanugages), as opposed to forming/maintaining/expanding a clan, there should be no reason for humans to fight, or to hate, for maintaining or promoting it.
 
Sukhamaya Bain
 
=================================================
From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 1, 2012 9:32 AM
Subject: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
Indeed, I believe most of us in this forum are opposed to religion-peddling, as Ms. Majid wrote. As I wrote before, there is no point in opening up religious books for criticism, even when that might look scholarly.
 
I am opposed to the use, misuse and abuse of religions, all of which have caused a lot of division, hatred and injustice in the world. While I do not follow any religion, I am not unwilling to do something just because if was found in a religious book. In other words, I am perfectly OK to implement in my life anything that is good in the Koran, for example.
 
To me, all religious books are part of my history. None of them are "my religion" or "someone else's religion." I am open to follow anything good in any book. I have no animosity toward any religion. For me, no religion needs to have cadres of defenders.
 
However, I am certainly for discarding anything bad in any book. And I am unwilling to dig for contexts by which a seemingly bad teaching can be interpreted to be OK or good. Nor do I have time for overly-brainwashed 'scholars', who try to sustain and promote nonsense in what they think is 'their religion'.
 
The bottom line is, we should fight division, hatred and injustice that are promoted via use, misuse and abuse or religions.
 
Sukhamaya Bain
 
====================================
From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Voice of the People
 
There is a gray area between religion itself and the way it is used by vested interest groups. In a God fearing society it is unproductive and sometimes catastrophic to bluntly criticize a religion. It antagonizes common people and the reactionary forces get an excuse to pull them on their own side. But can a society really progress without pointing out the weaknesses in a religion? Obviously, No. But if we do so, religious feelings of the believers cannot but be hurt. It is a dilemma indeed. When Dipa Mehta shows in her film "Water" the quote from Gandhi and Manusanhita side by side, the Hindutvabadis do not like it. But we come to know that Gandhi did not endorse all of sage Manu's sacred pronouncements.
 
======================================
From: Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 8:55 AM
Subject: RE: [mukto-mona] Voice of the People
 
                  Do we all agree, on this one point, that we are all opposed to religion-peddling? I fervently hope that the answer is: YES.                 If so, then it is our solemn duty to understand the matter of 'religion-peddling'.                          In this business of religion -peddling it is the 'peddling' part that should command our attention.  And that requires certain in-depth and close attention to politics. Religion is a very powerful cultural artifice, and since both politics and religion deal with a community of people, there has been a mix of the two from time immemorial.  But we are constantly talking about religion-related  social symptoms, and mis-diagnosing them as 'religion'.  Why? There are several reasons.  One, mental laziness.  It takes a lot more patience and astute observation to do a political analysis. It needs historical information.              Throughout the 16th century in Europe , for instance, the Catholic Church was fighting an intense political battle with the breaking up of the Church.  The execution of the Nolan Magus and poet, Giordano Bruno, who was not a scientist or mathematician like Nicholas Copernicus, and the persecution of astronomer Galileo, a couple of decades later are indicative of the Church's political authority under severe pressure.  It is silly to cite this as the paradigmatic 'science v. religion' struggle.  It is a singular historical event within the context of Europe .               Both Dawkins and Hitchens are being totally dishonest in their discussions against religion. Dawkins is addressing the Creationists exclusively, and Hitchens's arguments apply to the Jehadists only.  Neither has the courage and intelligence of Karen Armstrong who discards the construction of the binary opposition of 'science v. religion' and refuses any hierarchical positioning of the two branches of knowledge.               Two, critiquing religion is a mask for communalism.  More on that later.                               Farida Majid
 
==============================


__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___